There has been much talk this past week about the problem of immigration following the arrival of the Aquarius at the port of Valencia, thanks to the decision taken by Pedro Sánchez's executive on the situation of the ship.
There are two basic positions on this issue: yes and no. Thus, we have witnessed multiple arguments from both sides. Mainly, we can establish these arguments in a morality-intellect dimension. And I say mainly because unfortunately there are also others, although fortunately, they are not a relevant majority. It is not very difficult to realize that it is the left that opts for morality, and the right, that opts for intellect. That does not mean that the right denies the interest of saving people who try to cross the Mediterranean risking their lives. What he denies are the 'forms'. Therefore, the arguments wielded against ideas opposed to rescue if or if, show that the left sits on a pedestal of 'moral superiority' that criminalizes any other idea (as Ignacio Sánchez-Cuenca has shown in his book 'The moral superiority of the left'). And that is a fallacy that threatens the dignity of some people, where I include myself.
I am right-wing and that does not mean I deny help to anyone. What's more, I have been wearing the military uniform for 11 years and I have been deployed in Peace Operations because I have a deep feeling of helping and protecting. I have seen hunger and poverty, and as an example, I can say that before money they asked us for bottled water. But, neither can I stop analyzing a decision from a more intellectual prism, as I am also about to finish a degree in Political Science from the UNED and I can foresee the result of certain actions carried out by the executive. Thus, the sum of these two parts of my life allows me to see beyond in this matter. Therefore, I find it implausible to see how the government, given Ada Colau's offer to receive more ships with immigrants in Barcelona, has had to defend that "immigration is a political issue of the EU" when it has acted unilaterally and without prior notice in the case of Aquarius. What can we think of this position so distant from the one he had at the time? Well, obviously, that everything was an act of pure electoralism that has used morality as a weapon, dividing society again in the face of a rather complex issue and gaining electoral redito without assessing the real consequences.
And I say dividing because the main argument that has been used against positions opposed to the executive's decision has been racism and lack of solidarity through the question: Would you let them live or die? This reductionism perpetrated from the left to criminalize any other position is a clear example of the level that some politicians or some ideologies can reach. And it is an insult, an offense to those of us who raise the issue from other points of view. You cannot simplify this matter in this way and with this question. Like any person, I want to believe that the vast majority of human beings want a better world, help others and have a peaceful future for ourselves and our heirs. But neither can I be so idealistic, so laudable because I am able to see the possible results in political, social and economic terms of the actions taken by the Government. The problem is that the argument and, therefore, the question, is not only asked between citizens, but also between loved ones, and that leads to the breakdown of the base of all society.
Political decisions should never divide, but unite. They should never seek political redito for the sake of an electoral benefit at the cost of polarizing society in the face of such a large issue. They must seek the appropriate and consensual solution that reduces the problem over time. Thus, on this issue I believe that the executive has been wrong. Not only based on my personal position and the arguments made here, but also due to what happens to these people from the countries of origin to their rescue at sea. It is true that the decision has stirred up the hornet's nest of immigration in Europe and has put the problem on the table, but it is also true that it has generated confrontation with other member states that have their own idiosyncrasies in this regard. Therefore, fueling immigration with a 'call effect' only gives birth to more radical positions towards the problem. The proof is in Italy, where we can see that the combination of several factors such as the economic crisis, dysfunction and political instability and migratory pressure has led the government to a Prime Minister who is clearly 'racist'. What's more, it has obtained higher percentages of approval after making certain decisions against immigration. However, Italy cannot be defined as a racist country, nor can it be done with Japan or Australia, countries that are very restrictive with immigration.
In our case, as of 06/24/2018, 15,441 immigrants have arrived from Morocco by sea, Ceuta and Melilla, being now the country that receives the most irregular immigration in Europe above Italy and Malta. In addition, there is the problem of the mafias that facilitate the trafficking of people through the strait, and that benefit from the morality wielded by the executive. As we can see in the El Mundo report where they warn that they will notify Maritime Rescue as soon as they throw them to death, knowing that the boats will come to the rescue
Therefore, Pedro Sánchez's executive should be more careful when making decisions of this magnitude, both for its internal effects and for its external effects. You cannot treat such a complex issue in such an idealistic way. The root of the problem must be solved, and that means acting at its source, in the countries of origin. Opening the borders to anyone who needs it is an offering to radicalization, confrontation and division, both within Spain and within Europe because it is not just about living or dying at sea, it is about preventing the collapse of the values you defend and that the sea is the only possible path for those seeking a better life.
Alejandro Pérez O'pray, student of Political Science and Administration at the UNED.
